Cambridge works with ACLU to create transparency in surveillance law

By Adam SennottCambridge@wickedlocal.com

Wednesday

Aug 22, 2018 at 6:02 AM

Cameras mounted around Cambridge and designed to help 911 dispatchers view evacuation routes during public emergencies have not been turned on in nearly a decade, but are part of a current conversation about surveillance around the city.

The controversial cameras sparked fear and outrage after the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to install nearly 100 cameras across the greater Boston area back in 2009. Only eight of the cameras were to be placed in Cambridge. Despite efforts from Cambridge's then-Fire Chief Gerald Reardon to assure residents that the cameras were going to be used for safety and not surveillance purposes, the cameras were never turned on due to the public outcry, wrote Jeremy Warnick, director of communications for Cambridge Police Department, in an email.

“The Homeland Security cameras are indeed the cameras that were provided to the city, but are not in operation due to previously expressed community concerns,” Warnick said.

Surveillance ordinance proposed

Councilor Craig Kelley said the cameras are part of a conversation the Ordinance Committee is having with residents and the ACLU about a proposed surveillance ordinance.

“It’s the same discussion we’re having now,” Kelley said. “Where does the boundary of government concern about public safety and so forth intersect with the reasonable expectations of our privacy?”

“That was a discussion we had back then, and it’s a discussions we’re having now,” Kelley said. “Except that now I think we’re more focused on it.”

The Ordinance Committee, which Kelley chairs, met Aug. 13 to discuss the draft of the surveillance ordinance. Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU’s Technology for Liberty Program, said during the meeting that the goal of these types of ordinances is to bring the decision-making process around surveillance out of the bureaucracy and into the public.

“It’s not because the Cambridge Police Department, or any other city agency in Cambridge, has done something so horrific to violate the public trust,” Crockford said. “It’s more of a preventative measure and a measure, frankly, of good government.”

Getting ahead of tech changes

Crockford said it’s important to implement these types of local surveillance ordinances because of the imbalance between what new technologies allow, and people’s expectations of privacy and due process. She noted that technological advancements have made it possible for authorities to monitor the movements of hundreds, or even thousands, of people.

“Surveillance technology has changed fundamentally the balance of power between the government and the people,” Crockford said. “And so for that reason, it’s crucial that decisions about surveillance technology be made in public, informed by public debate and those decisions made, again, by elected officials.”

Crockford said the ACLU would like the ordinance to give the City Council control over which technologies are appropriate for Cambridge, and the ability to revoke previously approved technologies or suggest modifications to surveillance-use policy

The ACLU is also requesting that the ordinance give people the ability to take legal action if the city discovers an entity has violated the policy, and to protect whistleblowers and city employees from retaliation if they report violations of the law, Crockford said.

Police support oversight

Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson said during the meeting that she agreed the city needs a strong surveillance ordinance.

“I think we all acknowledge that the time has come for the city to be more transparent about this, and for us [to be able to have] more of a conversation with the council about this,” Peterson said.

She added that the current draft is a “strong ordinance” that “safeguards civil liberties and protects public safety.”

Police Commissioner Branville Bard Jr. said in a statement to the Chronicle that he is supportive of the draft ordinance.

“This draft ordinance strikes a balance between protecting privacy, civil liberties and allowing for public deliberation, while also allowing for the effective delivery of public safety services,” Bard said. “We continue to be supportive of the steps being taken to ensure a thoughtful surveillance oversight ordinance is completed.”